Nintendo
As much as I enjoy the tabletop side of roleplaying games, I can't deny that it was surpassed by its electronic counterparts a long
time ago. Admittedly, this is partially because when talking about video games an RPG can range from anything from an
automated pen and paper system to a more action driven, cinematic experience.
Then you have the likes of Pokémon, the multimedia franchise that began in Japan
and swept through the rest of the world. While we’re long past the 90s heyday of the
franchise, it’s still popular enough to generate widespread excitement for the newest games
and receive a major Hollywood film.
The Pokémon games draw heavily from JRPGs. Mainly in the
sense that while there are characters and a main storyline, it’s typically very
linear. The player’s ability to affect the narrative is almost entirely
nonexistent, leaving the player effectively on rails. The RPG element manifests
almost exclusively through the gameplay, in which the player is given
considerable options throughout the game. In Pokémon, that comes in the form of
the creatures you send to battle, as well as the abilities each one has. While
it seems far removed even from the likes of Dungeons
& Dragons, Pokémon is the bestselling RPG of all time for a reason. And
that means there's a lot a Game Master can learn from the games.
If isn’t broken, don’t fix it
Pokémon is hardly the only series to have a formula. But
there’s clearly something different when Nintendo has essentially released the same game seventeen times, without a single failure to speak of. Aside from consistent core gameplay, even
the storylines are largely the same. Each game follows the player character
leaving home to become a Pokémon trainer, beat gym leaders, and save the world at some point along the way. A malevolent organization
and overly persistent rival are also in the mix. The specifics vary from game
to game but there’s yet to be a mainline Pokémon game that deviates from this
basic format. This isn’t a bad thing by any means. Not many are playing Pokémon
for an in-depth, dynamic story. And certain games do manage to produce some
memorable if not particularly complex moments and characters. Some entires certainly
handle it better than others.
It can be hard for more ambitious GM’s to accept that
there’s a place for a formula. If you’re planning multiple campaigns and
sessions, there’s no harm in replicating what works. Originality is important
but that doesn’t justify throwing away a perfectly good story or gameplay element just to
be different. As long as you put enough effort to come up with some differences
and focus on other parts of your plans, it shouldn’t be an issue to fall back
on a formula. Just make sure that your players don’t feel like they’re in some
kind of Groundhog Day like limbo or
that you’re being lazy. The Pokémon games are likely the most obvious example
of finding a formula and using it for all its worth while still maintaining a certain level of quality and novelty.
Have a Clear Focus- then change it
As I said, every major Pokémon game has a fairly consistent storyline. One
of the more interesting recurring themes is how each game builds up to its
central plotline. At the start of each game, the player is tasked with
cataloguing every Pokémon they can find, when you’re not proving your worth as
a trainer. At some point along the way, you run into an absurdly dressed evil
“Team” who go from trying to steal your Pokémon to entirely remaking the world
to suit their whims. The better games find some way to integrate the two but
that’s not the point. What does matter is how each game starts out with a
fairly simplistic premise and then branches outward from it.
Despite the big jump from what’s essentially bug collecting
to stopping Cobra Commander, it never feels unnatural. The good games gradually
introduce their respective antagonists and never leads with world domination. They’re
clearly up to no good, judging by their typically small time introductory antics, which tends to be stealing other people's Pokémon. That frames the "Team" in the Gotta Catch 'Em All goal. Additionally, you usually have to defeat the team to move forward, as they start getting involved in your business.
The scale of each "Team's" villainy only becomes apparent much later on in the game. They also tie the “Team”
storyline back to your original objective by having a unique, legendary Pokémon
lie at the center of the antagonist’s dastardly plans. This gives the more selfish player an incentive outside of saving the world, as they get a chance to complete their Pokédex. Despite or possibly
because of the relatively simplistic storylines, Pokémon offers a good model
for GMs for introducing their antagonists and the stakes of
the narrative. As well as how to it with overshadowing other aspects of the
story.
Don’t limit your player’s options
The Pokémon series' enduring appeal can be at least somewhat
credited to the sheer variety offered by the games. The original games, Red and Blue, contained 151 distinct Pokémon for the player to battle as enemies and
acquire as potential allies. Aside from “evolutions,” these were all unique
creatures and not just endless recolors like in most other games. On top of
that, you had the type system, as well the multiple moves each one can learn.
Each installment adds a little more to this foundation, but that basic core is
still there. All in all, every Pokémon game gives its players a staggering
numbers of ways to battle through it, even if the ending is always the same.
This doesn’t seem particularly feasible to an outsider. It
can easily sound needlessly complex but anyone who’s played the
games can attest that it’s all relatively straightforward. The game wisely limit’s
what the player can do. You can never have more than six Pokémon at a time and
they can never know more than four moves. As a result, the player is constantly
forced to make choices, altering them depending on the specifics of the
situation. The type system also ensures that each Pokémon has a clearly defined
set of strengths and weaknesses. With a handful of exceptions, there’s no take-all-comers creature, so the player will find themselves frequently switching
out their teams.
The lesson for a GM is that they shouldn’t limit the
players’ number of options but rather how many they can actually use at a time. This
makes it easier for everyone to keep track of things, while still ensuring it isn't all too linear. With this approach, you can avoid having to make any major
compromises. Also make sure to look at how Pokémon rations out its content. The
games present you with basic features and Pokémon before gradually
working in the more complicated elements. If a GM follows this path, the
players feel like they have a variety of options in front of them without
making the campaign feel overwhelming. Just don’t come up with the tabletop
equivalent of making two identical games, distinguishable only by whether or
not they have certain Pokémon.
